анонимный вопрос

The more I read about Christiania, the more parallels I find with Elausestere—a group of islands on the outskirts of the Tuamotu Archipelago where, according to the Meganesian Cycle by Alexander Rozov—a piece of sci-fi popular among Russian libertarians—a communist enclave existed within a minarchist confederation.

A group of people homesteads unclaimed property, organizes self-governance, establishes its own exotic order, and then the outside world eventually notices this commune, and its first impulse is obvious: to bring it to a common denominator. It quickly becomes clear that this is, first, difficult; second, disapproved of by local residents; third, not approved by all other citizens; and finally, that profit can be derived from this attraction.

Next come the negotiations, a partial adaptation of the enclave to external rules of the game—and that’s it, it lives freely and happily in symbiosis with its surroundings.

What is more prevalent in today’s Christiania—anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, or is it simply something like a Chinatown, only formed not by cultural-ethnic, but simply by cultural traits? From the state’s point of view—definitely the third. An anarcho-capitalist will see primarily ancap traits in Christiania. I think an ancom will see primarily ancom traits.

Well, it’s wonderful that Christiania managed to please everyone and allow each person to see something of their own in it!

I’ve made a note for myself: when I travel around Europe, I’ll stop by Christiania.